Home Owners' Loan Corp. v. Caplan

Decision Date16 April 1942
Docket NumberNo. 37828.,37828.
Citation160 S.W.2d 754
PartiesHOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION v. ELEANOR L. CAPLAN, EPHRIM CAPLAN, and JAMES B. KILLIAN, Appellants.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court of St. Louis County. Hon. Julius R. Nolte, Judge.

TRANSFERRED TO ST. LOUIS COURT OF APPEALS.

Ephrim Caplan for appellants.

(1) Plaintiff corporation, having been created by Act of Congress, is a corporation "incorporated under the laws of another state" as provided by the corporation laws of Missouri. Sec. 4596, R.S. 1929; Smith v. Pacific Ry. Co., 61 Mo. 17; Sec. 4599, R.S. 1929. (a) The provisions of the State laws respecting corporations incorporated under the laws of another state are applicable to plaintiff without being in conflict with any Act of Congress or of the powers delegated to the federal government. Federal Land Bank v. Priddy, 295 U.S. 229. (2) Plaintiff corporation, though created by Act of Congress, is a business corporation, to be treated like any other business corporation. Pennell v. H.O.L.C., 21 Fed. Supp. 497; Herman v. H.O.L.C., 200 Atl. 742; Central Market v. King, 272 N.W. 244, 246; McAvoy v. Weber, 88 Pac. (2d) 448. (3) In determining whether plaintiff shall be treated like any other business corporation, it is immaterial: (a) That all of its capital stock is owned by the federal government. United States v. Strang, 254 U.S. 491; In re Eastern Shore, 274 Fed. 893; The Lake Monroe, 250 U.S. 254; Bank of United States v. Planters Bank, 9 Wheat. 904; (b) or, that Congress created it to be a governmental instrumentality. Kiefer v. Reconstruction Finance Co., 306 U.S. 381; Federal Housing Adm. v. Burr, 84 L. Ed. 427; United States v. Winkle Terra Cotta Co., 110 Fed. (2d) 919; Gould v. U.S. Shipping Board, 261 Fed. 716. (4) The fact that Congress created plaintiff to be a governmental instrumentality but as a separate corporate entity, and granted it no immunities from State corporate control, is assurance that Congress did not intend it to be free of State control. Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Menihan Corp., 85 L. Ed. 548; Reagan v. Mercantile Trust Co., 154 U.S. 413; Federal Housing Adm. v. Burr, 84 L. Ed. 427. (a) Plaintiff corporation though created by Act of Congress as a governmental instrumentality, it partakes of no sovereign immunity from the corporation laws of this State. Federal Housing Adm. v. Moore, 90 Fed. (2d) 32; In re Miller, 105 Fed. (2d) 926. (5) Congress having granted plaintiff exemptions only from certain specified taxation, such enumeration cannot be spread by construction to immunity from compliance with the foreign corporation laws of this State. State v. Christopher, 2 S.W. (2d) 621, 630; State v. Richman, 148 S.W. (2d) 796. (6) Section 4599, R.S. 1929, expressly prohibiting the maintenance of a class of actions, such as plaintiff's suit, in any of the courts of this State, and prohibiting the maintenance of any such suit by this plaintiff because not a proper party, that creates a lack of jurisdiction in the court over the subject matter. Ballew Lumber Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry., 232 S.W. 1015; United Cemeteries Co. v. Strother, 119 S.W. (2d) 762. (7) Defendants' plea to the jurisdiction being adequately pleaded, it was the duty of the court to hear and to adjudicate upon the facts and the law, and the right of defendants to have a hearing and adjudication of those issues. State v. Missouri Compensation Comm., 113 S.W. (2d) 1034. (a) And the failure and refusal of the court to adjudicate those issues but sustaining plaintiff's motion to strike out that plea is contrary to the established rules of practice and procedure and law of the State, and is in violation of defendants' right to due process of law as provided by the State Constitution, Article II, Section 30. Tomlinson v. French Society, 109 S.W. (2d) 73. (8) The meaning of the words "incorporated under the laws of another state" as provided in Sections 4596 and 4599, R.S. Mo., 1929, being plain and of long standing, those words are not a proper subject of judicial interpretation. St. Louis Amusement Co. v. St. Louis County, 147 S.W. (2d) 667. (a) Those statutory words, long accepted and judicially determined to include a corporation created by Act of Congress, an attempt by the court to interpret said statutes as intended to mean that corporations created by Act of Congress are not included and therefore do not apply to plaintiff, is in violation of the State Constitution, Article III as the court is infringing upon the power of the Legislature to determine the policy of this State in respect to foreign corporations. State v. Knapp, 33 S.W. (2d) 891; Span v. Jackson, 16 S.W. (2d) 190. (b) And the court, by the aforesaid unlawful exercise of legislative powers having judicially determined that plaintiff is not a foreign corporation within the meaning and purpose of said statutes, and the court thereupon permitting plaintiff to maintain its suit and the court proceeding to entertain jurisdiction under plaintiff's cause and render judgment in plaintiff's favor against defendants, the defendants are deprived of their property without due process of law in violation of the provisions of the, State Constitution, Article II, Section 30. Citations, supra, Point (8) (a).

Claud D. Hall for respondent.

(1) The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction of this appeal for the reason that it does not involve the construction of the Constitution of the United States nor the Constitution of the State of Missouri. Article VI, Section 12, Constitution of Missouri. (a) To give the Supreme Court jurisdiction there must be a question of the validity of the statute or treaty, and jurisdiction does not vest in cases merely involving the construction of federal statutes. White Com. Co. v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 157 Mo. 518, 57 S.W. 1070; Schwyhart v. Barrett, 223 Mo. 497, 122 S.W. 1049; Chastain v. M.-K.-T. Ry. Co., 226 Mo. 94, 125 S.W. 1099. The Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction in a case where a compliance with the federal statute is questioned. Vaughan v. Wabash Ry. Co., 145 Mo. 57, 46 S.W. 952. (b) A constitutional question affecting the rights of persons will not be decided where they are not directly or necessarily involved. Watson Seminary v. Pike County Court, 149 Mo. 57, 45 L.R.A. 675; Burnetta v. Marceline Coal Co., 79 S.W. 136, 189 Mo. 241; House v. Mayes, 127 S.W. 305, 227 Mo. 617, 219 U.S. 270, 55 L. Ed. 213; Moler v. Whisman, 147 S.W. 985, 243 Mo. 571, 40 L.R.A. (N.S.) 629, Ann. Cases 1913D, 392. The mere invoking of a party of a provision of the Constitution does not demand its construction, but must involve it. Davidson v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 132 S.W. 291, 151 Mo. App. 561. (c) Where all defenses raised at the trial and discussed in the defendant's brief on appeal could be considered and adjudged without reference to the Constitution they call for no interpretation of any clause thereof, and no constitutional question is raised. Brookline Canning & Packing Co. v. Evans, 142 S.W. 319, 238 Mo. 599. (2) There is nothing in this suit by way of any statute or the ruling or judgment of the court that was a denial to the defendants of due process of law as provided by Article II, Sec. 30, of the Constitution of Missouri. McManus v. Burrows, 217 S.W. 512, 280 Mo. 327; Hider v. Sharp, 257 S.W. 112, 301 Mo. 625; Ivie v. Bailey, 5 S.W. (2d) 50, 319 Mo. 474; Rusk v. Thompson, 156 S.W. 64, 170 Mo. App. 76; Davidson v. Hartford Ins. Co., 132 S.W. 291, 151 Mo. App. 561. (3) The Home Owners' Loan Corporation was properly and legally organized under an Act of Congress (Home Owners' Loan Act of 1933). United States ex rel. Fletcher v. Fahey, 121 Fed. (2d) 28, appeal filed in the Supreme Court of the United States, June 30, 1941, Docket No. 226; certiorari denied Oct. 13, 1941, 62 Sup. Ct. Rep. 84; Home Owners' Loan Corporation Act, June 13, 1933, secs. three (3) and four (4). (4) The court will take judicial notice of public acts of Congress. Home Owners' Loan Corp. v. Robinson, 285 N.W. 76; H.O.L. Corp. v. Gordon, 97 Pac. 845, 36 Cal. App. (2d) 189; Papin v. Rhine & Walker, 32 Mo. 21; Young v. Boy Scouts of America, 9 Cal. App. (2d) 760, 51 Pac. (2d) 191. (5) The action of the court in striking out the first paragraph of defendants' plea and answer was not error, for the reasons: (a) Sections of the statutes requiring "foreign corporations" to comply with their provisions are not applicable. These statutory provisions do not include the Home Owners' Loan Corporation. Home Owners' Loan Corp. v. Sherwin, 52 Ohio App. 567, 18 N.E. (2d) 992; Same v. Welch, 59 Ohio App. 567, 18 N.E. (2d) 992; Bezat v. Home Owners' Loan Corp., 98 Pac. (2d) 852; Commonwealth v. Texas & Pac. R. Co., 98 Pac. 90; Stewart v. Atlantic Natl. Bank, 27 Fed. (2d) 224; Jeffries v. Fed. Land Bank of New Orleans, 238 Ala. 97; Severson v. Home Owners' Loan Corp., 88 Pac. (2d) 344; Dodson v. Home Owners' Loan Corp., 123 S.W. (2d) 435; Carter v. Home Owners' Loan Corp., 123 S.W. (2d) 437; Homan v. Connett, 152 S.W. (2d) 1053. (b) Home Owners' Loan Corporation, organized under an act of Congress (Acts of June 13, 1933) to do business as an instrumentality of the United States Government, was not subject to the provisions of Sections 4596, 4598, 4599, 4936 and 4937, requiring certain corporations to maintain an office for service of process and to file articles of incorporation with the Secretary of State, and to obtain a license to do business in the State. Loverno v. H.O.L. Corp., 15 N.Y. Supp. (2d) 967; Pittman v. H.O.L. Corp., 308 U.S. 21, 60 Sup. Ct. 15, 84 L. Ed. 11. The Home Owners' Loan Corporation has been held in this jurisdiction to be an instrumentality of the United States Government. Dudley v. H.O.L. Corp., 125 S.W. 95, l.c. 97; Huffman v. H.O.L. Corp., 30 Fed. Supp. 139; Hillis v. H.O.L. Corp., 154 S.W. 761; Swedock v. H.O.L. Corp., Court of Common Pleas, Ohio, Nov. 26, 1938; H.O.L. Corp. v. Barone, 298 N.Y. Supp. 531; H.O.L. Corp....

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Home Owners' Loan Corp. v. Caplan
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 16 Abril 1942
  • Komosa v. Monsanto Chemical Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 10 Noviembre 1958
    ...there is no need to construe any provision thereof and we do not have appellate jurisdiction upon the ground. Home Owners' Loan Corporation v. Caplan, 349 Mo. 353, 160 S.W.2d 754. This court being without appellate jurisdiction, the cause is transferred to the Kansas City Court of VAN OSDOL......
  • Magenheim v. Board of Ed. of School Dist. of Riverview Gardens, 48299
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 12 Diciembre 1960
    ... ... Nick, Banc, 345 Mo. 305, 134 S.W.2d 112, 114[8, 9]; Home Owners' ... Loan Corp. v. Caplan, 349 Mo. 353, 160 S.W.2d ... ...
  • Swift & Co. v. Doe
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 10 Marzo 1958
    ...have appellate jurisdiction on that ground. Rollins v. Business Men's Accident Ass'n, Mo.Sup., 213 S.W. 52; Home Owners' Loan Corporation v. Caplan, 349 Mo. 353, 160 S.W.2d 754. It is intimated in defendants' jurisdictional statement that we have appellate jurisdiction because the appeal in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT